Sapiosexual
» Love and Lust
I enjoy sexual nonce words. This afternoon I made the acquaintance of sapiosexuality.
Sapiosexuals find bright people erotically compelling. Can you imagine a more laudable sexual orientation? Being a smart man I have a vested interest in seeing such idealism realized. I fear sapiosexuals will remain a slender minority.
And there's that weary old question of what do you mean by intelligence. Do you mean someone wise, though that is an equally vague word? The most foolish might equate intelligence with the ability to make right decisions (which for me is the defining quality of wisdom). Or the ability to manipulate words or other symbols (example: mathematicians) dazzlingly? Which could mean a gifted propagandist or advertising copywriter but I was think more of Nabokov.
And there's intuition. A kind of intelligence that lets us perceive and reason though invisible mechanisms. Which leads us to talent.
There's nothing I respect more than intellectual intelligence. But I'm more captivated by someone who can create beauty or even the merely pretty. I think talent is sexier than intelligence. I'd rather be charmed by someone.
Somewhere up the ladder talent takes a quantum leap into genius but I'm not fool enough to try to right about the latter.
Back to sapiosexuality. To my own harm I've always been attracted to giddyheads. There's something about a nattering silly guy that sweeps me out of reason. With women though I can't think of anything I admire more than intelligent eyes. It is a quality that always consciously registered when I notice it in a woman.
If I find myself back in the meet and meat market I hope I'll cultivate a more sapiosexual orientation, be less prey to my childish weaknesses.
Also (the most linked to page on my site): Metrosexual, Pansexual, Bisexual, Omnisexual?.
Myself: Pansexual.
Comments
I just stole your word. Thank you very much. :)
Joe
Posted by: Joseph H. Vilas | February 15, 2004 1:39 AM
Although I am not a fan of all this sexuality-label-phenomena, I liked this one, Richard. I would probably consider myself one though for me it clarifies the fact that I am up for the impossible: A wise, intelligent man (hence comes my Saposexuality) who is also strikingly handsome. The latter part greatly reduces the chance, indeed, for it’s an almost extinct combination.
Posted by: Aura | February 15, 2004 7:24 AM
Maybe I’m just a hopeless ‘sapiosexual’, but isn’t this what everyone is looking for? It seems to be a fairly subjective idea of attraction… for instance someone incredibly dull to me would probably be exciting and engaging to others.
To its credit, it is a label of sexuality that is not gender biased!!!
Perhaps another subcategory of the ‘pomosexual’? I’ve been noticing a lot of usage of that word from newspapers in India via Yahoo and Google News… Labels are only good for things in the freezer, though… hehe
Posted by: th0m | February 17, 2004 9:48 AM
I suspect sapiosexuality is very hard to live up to. What if the other person with the wonderful mind is fat? Some people can live up to it, but few.
Yeah, many of the people I find sexually attractive often repel others because it is the ‘gender ambiguity’ that appeals to me. To be fair it took me years to adjust to the roughness that many people find sexy in a male.
I just like playing with sexual nonce words. Pomosexual is next on my list. I don’t take them seriously, not even my own ‘androgynophillia.’
Posted by: Richard | February 17, 2004 3:38 PM
Well this all very surreal now. from all the comments ive read it seems this a something that only the good and beautiful can aspire to being? yes? emma
Posted by: emma jones | November 20, 2005 6:18 PM
No more than other things.
People want someone smart. But cute.
People want someone kind. But handsome.
People want someone sweet. But sexy.
Many people do limit their chances to find someone they would really like by including superificial physical qualities.
But a few people really do just look for the right match of heart and mind.
Posted by: Richard | November 20, 2005 6:30 PM
The type of intelligence I meant when I created the term was that which allows one to have unending conversations. You can read more about it at the URL that I listed.
But really, I think that people can define the intelligence how they want; I think it’s more important to have intelligence be a strong factor than to quibble about what sorts of intelligence are acceptable.
I do at times enjoy looking at those who are classical pretty but rather vapid. But, for me at least, it never goes past that. If I can’t talk with them, what’s the point.
Posted by: Torin/Wolfieboy | November 20, 2005 10:19 PM